Slashdot Mirror


Japan's Nuclear Energy Industry Nears Shutdown

mdsolar sends this quote from an article at the NY Times: "All but two of Japan's 54 commercial reactors have gone offline since the nuclear disaster a year ago, after the earthquake and tsunami, and it is not clear when they can be restarted. With the last operating reactor scheduled to be idled as soon as next month, Japan — once one of the world's leaders in atomic energy — will have at least temporarily shut down an industry that once generated a third of its electricity. With few alternatives, the prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, has called for restarting the plants as soon as possible, saying he supports a gradual phase-out of nuclear power over several decades. Yet, fearing public opposition, he has said he will not restart the reactors without the approval of local community leaders."

33 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Reportage on Fukushima by olau · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Danish television had a reportage on the effect of the Fukushima incident on the people living nearby.

    After seeing the reportage, I can understand why they are shutting down the other reactors for the time being. It's one thing reading that nuclear power plants statistically kills very few compared to other sources of energy, it's another thing when you have to leave your ancestors home for 12 generations, or be stuck with a house that nobody will buy because even if it's outside the immediate danger zone and the authorities say it's safe, noone wants to take the risk.

    Whether fair or not, the incident violated the trust people had in the administrators of the nuclear tech, and it's going to take something to earn that trust back.

    1. Re:Reportage on Fukushima by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't really matter why they're kept out of their homes; the fact that people are too scared to live in or buy homes in an area is still a real estate crisis, and, as we've seen in the U.S., real estate loss can be a quick way to lose everything. Sometimes facts aren't enough to stem fear, at least not right away.

      GP already addressed this point well in his post. It isn't fair to the nuclear power industry as a whole, but Fukushima shook the trust of the populace badly. Their fear is not unreasonable, especially in light of all the mistakes that were later uncovered (and, of course, widespread fear gives rise to "stupid regulations").

      Think of it this way: If you survive the very, very unlikely incident of a plane crash, would it be unreasonable if you started to fear flying, regardless of the overall safety statistics? Sure, you may be one of the many folks that flies again with no problem, but it would also be understandable if you decided to drive everywhere, instead. The psychology behind this type of fear makes clear sense.

  2. Alternatives? by paleo2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And what are Japan, Germany, etc. going to do for energy once they've phased out their big, scary nuclear power plants? Unless they find a way to quickly and effectively implement large-scale solar plants/farms, geothermal, etc. they're going to resort to burning fossil fuel. A big step backwards because, under extreme circumstances, nuclear can be dangerous.

    You know what's even more dangerous than an accident at a nuclear plant? A world-wide war over the planet's dwindling fossil fuel supplies.

    1. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not worried about Germany. Already in 2011 clean energies (wind/solar/biomass/hydro) surpassed nuclear in production 108TWh nuclear vs 117TWh. This out of a grand total of 612TWh. Most of the electricity comes from coal.

      There are large programs under way to expand on that. The biggest challenge are the transmission lines who do not have the capacity to ferry large amounts of electricity from the new production areas (north) to where electricity is used and can be stored in hydro plants (south).

    2. Re:Alternatives? by olau · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I get the impression this is a temporary shutdown?

      As for Germany, speaking as someone coming from a neighbour country, it seems they're really into getting more renewable energy sources up and running. If you were really interested in this, as opposed to just complaining, you could check out the Wikipedia page on renewable energy in Germany.

      To be honest, I think the tech is there, it's just a question of dumping some money into it, and the increasing oil prices are helping with that. The Danish engineering society had a plan for Denmark to get rid of (I think?) 90+% of the current dependence on fossil fuels in 2050. We have no nuclear power plants.

    3. Re:Alternatives? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Japan has a huge coast line, it's an ideal location for wind parks. Germany is investing heavily into that, but that means (among other things) to build HVDC transmission lines to reach the coast. Japan doesn't even need to do that. For reference, here is a report from the Royal Corps of Engineering about the costs of various power sources: Costs_Report. Wind is actually quite affordable despite the standby costs (taken into consideration by the report). Electric cars and demand shaping (e.g. with smart metering) could help bringing that down further.

      Extreme circumstances are normal in the pacific ring of fire, and just like Germany, Japan has no place to store the spent nuclear fuel. Neither country can afford to lose a chunk of land like the region around Fukushima - they are densely populated and the land is highly developed and valuable.

      That doesn't mean that nuclear power doesn't make sense anywhere, but Japan is the wrong place for it.

    4. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "You know what's even more dangerous than an accident at a nuclear plant?"

      cucumbers. ecoli in salad killed 40 people in europe last year.
      (aids, cars, air pollution, war, tobacco, heart disease, natural disasters, etc also come come out quite high)

    5. Re:Alternatives? by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Japan was already the #2 nation in the world at burning oil for power; Saudi Arabia was #1, no surprise. #3? Good ol' USA - courtesy Hawaii. Japan is the #3 oil consumer in the world; Japan - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The estimate is for them to increase oil consumption ca. 238k barrels per day to make up for the shortfall from offline nukes; oil only provides 10% of their generating capacity. This will add a few % points to the overall price of crude but Iran sanctions and growing demand from developing countries will be larger factors.

      Japan also shed 423 kb/d in 2009, due to the recession, so they're simply backtracking to earlier consumption levels.

  3. Low Power by Eggbloke · · Score: 5, Informative

    My dad was saying that Tokyo is depressing, apparently there are power shortages so most of the signs and escalators are turned off and the city is dark. How are they supposed to make up their energy requirements if they stop using nuclear?

    --
    I care not for your karma and your mod points.
    1. Re:Low Power by Tsian · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is not really true. There was a period of (planned) rolling blackouts, but in the end energy conservation (and increased generation) meant that, except for immediately after the quake, the lights didn't go off.

      However, many buildings (and stations) reduced lighting and took some escalators out of service. However, even those measures have mostly been abandoned, with escalators and the like operating as before (partly due to the fact that it wasn't practical to block off escalators in many of the busier stations). Many stores and offices, however, continue to turn off some of their lights.

      That said, even at "reduced" lighting, most Japanese stations are still incredibly well lit. We aren't talking about platforms half shrouded in shadow so much as a slight reduction in the overall brightness level.

      It will be interesting to see, however, what happens as we once again approach summer (and the increased energy demands due to A/C) combined with the current shut-down of nuclear power plants.

    2. Re:Low Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      This hasn't been the case for months. I was in Tokyo a few years back and again in september 2011, a few months after Fukushima. The difference was negligible. Signs and escalators were on as usual. There were no rolling blackouts. They had just switched back the airport express trains to the regular schedule too after running them on reduced traffic for a while. I did a fair bit of travelling around central and western Japan and there were no signs of power shortages anywhere (granted I didn't go anywhere very near to Fukushima). The only thing that reminded me that there had been any kind of nuclear power-related incident was that I found one grocery advertising guaranteed radiation-free food.

      I strongly believe the scale and impact of the Fukushima incident was vastly exaggerated by western media for the sake of sensationalism. The consequences for those living nearby were severe. For everyone else life returned to normal after a few months.

  4. I know a bit of what's going on... by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... but probably not much more than some of the more +1 Insightful commenters here.

    The core of their problem is arrogance and the influence business has over government regulators. The days of shoguns and daimyos are long behind Japan but somehow the mindset still lives on. There are a few very large companies in Japan with a rich and tight lineage that dates back to before the Meiji restoration. Their influence over government and their "job-for-life" filial piety along with their reluctance to challenge the people "in charge" of things has led to a poorly regulated nuclear industry which allowed the Fukushima disaster to occur.

    But Japan is not "unique" in this. It just so happens that they were the first to get tripped up with a natural disaster. But that said, they did a lot of things in the handling that simply made it worse and worse. (Still, they came in 2nd when you compare Fukushima to the BP oil spill and BP's handling of that.) In the US, the nuclear industry and been playing a pushing game where the NRC pushes the nuclear energy companies and the nuclear energy companies push back through various means not the least of which are lobbying and other forms of politics. One difference between the US and Japan is found in the success of independent watchdog groups who take personal interest in the environment and the safety of nuclear energy. Greenpeace is a huge annoyance, but they also serve an important purpose in that they can and do bring light to problems that would otherwise be swept under the rug. This exists less in Japan and problems that some people have knowledge of are often unheard and cannot speak. Their lack of openness is a critical problem.

    My initial reaction to this turn is that Japan is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. They are an emotional and over-reaction group of people. But the US made them that way.... the US did it to Germany as well. When we 'pacified' them over the decades, we shifted their thinking and their sense of reason. So instead of saying "okay, here are the causes of the problem, let's fix them!" they are more concerned about who is to blame and are focusing on the fact that nuclear energy is an awesome and powerful source of energy which is also very dangerous. Well, yes... yes it is. But they forget that it's also controllable and containable with vigilant regulation and oversight.

    Vigilance of regulation and oversight are expensive... and annoying... and definitely slow things down and make things cost more. But without it...?

    1. Re:I know a bit of what's going on... by azalin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ah the possibilities of starting a pro-/anti-nuke, liberal vs tighter regulations and many more...
      But let's stay nice today and just state a few simple facts:
      • Nuclear is about as dangerous as possible, if not properly built, maintained and inspected by an independent(!) group
      • The benefits of having nuclear power are big and the risk of something going wrong is rather low, but
      • If the shit hits the fan, it does so big time.
      • There are newer and safer designs available, but most reactors in the wild are older versions
      • Nuclear isn't actually that cheap if factoring in ALL external costs. (Waste storage for a few thousand years, insurance that would completely cover the costs in case of meltdown, etc.)
      • Other energy sources have other drawbacks (pollution, price, radioactive fallout-yes I'm looking at you coal-, having to hand over money to dictators and many more)

      My opinion on this? Nuclear is fine because it produces a lot of energy with a comparatively low environmental impact. It is quickly adjustable to current needs and is independent of wind or weather. But if there ever was one industry that needs tight oversight and jail time for any manager that fucks up security it is nuclear. The oil spill was bad, but it is over. Though it will take many years for the ocean to regenerate it will. But if a reactor blows up for good, the damage stays with you for several hundred years. So you have to make damn sure it never happens.

  5. They should shut down some of them by Hentes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Many of the Japanese nuclear plants are old unsecure BWRs, they should start working on safer ones so they can shut them down in 10 years.

  6. Re:Need login to read an article? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least he has a name.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  7. Re:See? by Kreigaffe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow, that sounds like JUST want we need -- Germany and Japan starving for energy.

    Certainly that will end well!

    --
    ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  8. Re:energy rations? by ommerson · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Japanese have been very successful in curbing demand. I was over in Japan for a week on a business trip last year, and it was interesting to see how they did it. This included absolutely all hand-driers in toilets being switched off, less air-conditioning (room temperature was set for 28C in the office), the business week of large corporations shifted to reduce peak-week-time demand and increase that on the weekend, and a move to more relaxed corporate dress-code - which included in many cases, a small towel attached to the waistband with which to mop off the sweat form the oppressive environment. There were no doubt more measures that I wasn't aware of, but life definitely carries on as normal without power cuts.

    Our suspicion is that this state of affairs will become the norm.

  9. Non-nuclear? Oh , you mean oil... by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... that they're currently shipping in in vast quantities? I'm sure thats doing wonders for their CO2 footprint.

  10. Re:Need login to read an article? by icebraining · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's the NYT paywall - you just need to change the '_r' parameter in the URL to 0 instead of 4.

  11. Re:LOL, Bitter Nucleartard by joib · · Score: 4, Funny

    They are going to have to get their electricity from somewhere & generating capacity don't grow on trees.

    Unless they burn, um, err, apples? Yes, APPLES!

    1. 1. Solve world energy crisis
    2. 2. Get Nobel peace price
    3. 3. Profit!!!

    Man, I'm awesome!

  12. Re:Another example of cronyism by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So business created the tsunami?

    Typically anonymous and cowardly comment. Business decided where to put the reactor, in a location they knew were unsafe, and government forced that decision through. So while business didn't create the tsunami, they deliberately created the situation in which a tsunami would cause a meltdown, and did so with government oversight.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Re:Why politics should not dictate to science by dominious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet, fearing public opposition, he has said he will not restart the reactors without the approval of local community leaders."

    This is Slashdot:

    In one thread, people go paranoid about governments not thinking of their people.
    In another thread, governments are stupid because they ask their people of what to do.

  14. Re:See? by El+Torico · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's already significantly affected Japan. For the first time since 1980, Japan has a negative balance of trade. This is from the Trading Economics site page on Japan.

    Last year Japan’s trade balance fell into an annual deficit for the first time since 1980, driven by subdued global demand and soaring fossil fuel imports in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear power crisis.

    I fully understand their desire to decrease dependence on nuclear power in light of the disaster, but quitting "cold turkey" obviously has had a strong negative impact.

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
  15. Anybody in Japan please comment on TEPCO by fritsd · · Score: 4, Informative

    From what I read in the western media, TEPCO is losing incredible amounts of money cleaning up the Fukushima mess.
    The Japanese also seem less than happy ("Private panel blames TEPCO's 'systematic negligence'") [note to Slashdot readers: that Asahi Shimbun newspaper doesn't seem to have a paywall].

    However, I also read that TEPCO was strongly involved in developing Sodium-Sulfur batteries to help solve the storage problem associated with large rollout of intermittent electricity generators (i.e. solar only when it's sunny and wind turbines only when it's windy). Anything else than Sodium-Sulfur or other cheap redox couples, is probably too expensive for real large-scale use.

    So, I really hope that the battery division of TEPCO survives any lawsuits/bankruptcy procedures/government sanctions because they seem to be working on transitioning Japan away from the nuclear addiction and towards a very clean (but slightly explosive) technology that the rest of the world is probably eager to share.
    Anybody in Japan please comment if this makes sense. I don't read Japanese and have never been there.

    --
    To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  16. Re:energy rations? by El+Torico · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I lived in northern Japan last year during the summer. The Japanese voluntarily cut back their electricity use so much that they didn't need to impose energy rationing. I don't know if that has changed since I left.

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
  17. Re:Another example of cronyism by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So business created the tsunami?

    Typically anonymous and cowardly comment. Business decided where to put the reactor, in a location they knew were unsafe, and government forced that decision through. So while business didn't create the tsunami, they deliberately created the situation in which a tsunami would cause a meltdown, and did so with government oversight.

    Business doesn't decide anything in Japan. Japan has one of the most rigid centralized governments anywhere in the world. If you want to move a local street sign, you have to get permission from Tokyo. The government decides everything over there. I don't want to call Japan fascist... since they do have free elections there... but the Japanese government certainly does pick winners and losers in their corporate field in the way that classic fascist governments did, and the corporations in Japan take their marching orders from Tokyo. This is by design, and it's been the model since post WWII. This model is supposedly why Japan was going to rule the world via business (instead of by military force) by the mid-90's. Several books in the 80's touted the superiority of this model to the American market system, declaring the US system obsolete. It didn't quite work out that way. Japan is now in its' third decade of economic doldrums, yet the government clings to this top-down model. One of the things that Japanese companies found when they started building factories and plants in the US and abroad was that they had much more freedom to operate locally than back at home.

    You seem to think that businesses tell the government what to do over there. Quite the opposite. The government bureaucracy completely rules that country. If the reactors were built in a bad place, then Tokyo was just fine with that.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  18. Re:Another example of cronyism by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, this is one of the rare cases where business is the force for "good", while public opinion is the force for "evil".

    If public didn't hear associate "radiation" with "oh god, a HORRIBLE DEATH GLOWING GREEN!", reactor subsystems would have been upgraded to more modern ones quite a while ago. But they can't be upgraded, because "upgrades to nuclear power plants peripherals" will be spun as "upgrading nuclear power plants" which will be heard as "we are building more nuclear power, HORRIBLE DEATH GLOWING GREEN!".

    So we end up having tech from 60s (when entire industry was born in 50s!) instead of modern reactors and modern peripherals that would have taken the punishment of that tsunami. Hell, we can't even research new tech because of public opinion, and are forced to use old tech. Fukushima was a great demonstration of how well plants were actually made - many forget that plants were built to withstand 7 magnitudes and reasonable tsunamis, and got hit by 9 magnitudes and biggest tsunami in a century and then some. And even so, the plant didn't cause a single death, even with tsunami wiping out essentially all infrastructure of the region and killing 30.000 people.

    We really should make a name for "stupid, loud and opinionated people" as a concept. "Sheepism" maybe?

  19. Re:Another example of cronyism by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The main reason Japan was stuck on Gen I reactor design was because the COMPANIES that ran the reactors didn't want to spend the money to upgrade and the GOVERNMENT thought that idea was just peachy.

    It's called regulatory capture and the Japanese rewrote the book on it.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  20. Re:energy rations? by wrook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I live in Japan. Life here isn't like it is in the west. Before the tsunami the air conditioner in the office was set to 26 degrees C. After it was set to 28 decrees C. In the winter, the heater was set to 15 degrees C before the tsunami and 14 degrees C after. Even then, because it was a cold winter where I am, they ended up pushing up the thermostat to 15 degrees anyway.

    BTW, I work in a school and the class rooms are unheated/uncooled just like always.

    Conservation works reasonably well. The problem was that the Japanese were already conserving.

  21. Re:Another example of cronyism by FlatEric521 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Business decided where to put the reactor

    Uh, no.

    Technical reasons decided where to put the reactor. Like all nuclear power plants, Fukushima needed a massive body of water to assist in cooling the plant. Japan isn't known for its huge rivers or lakes, so the coast becomes the default location to place power plants.

  22. Re:See? by borrrden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably not....Japanese people are much more willing to put up with personal discomfort for the sake of the collective. A big part of their culture revolves around keeping harmony with the people around them, so speaking up with a complaint is unbecoming. Also having an idea that differs from other peoples' is frowned upon. This summer will probably turn out to be the same as last summer, with the rolling blackouts making a comeback. Although since more power plants have been shut down, the radius of blackouts might be extended. I don't know what my company will do during the blackouts if they come to our area, since we develop software and obviously can't do that with no power ;P.

  23. Re:See? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

    I didn't think that the reactors at Fukushima were poorly maintained. The disaster planning/design however did not address both an earthquake and a tsunami of that size. Now they should have anticipated both as the plant was located along a shoreline, but that's a different matter. When the earthquake hit, the reactors shut down immediately and the emergency diesel generators kicked in to provide power and cooling according to plan. But these generators were located either on the ground floor or basements. The sea wall around the plant would protect it against it a 25 ft wave. The problem was the wave was at least 40 ft. The diesel generators were wiped out and the plant lost all power. Disaster planning did not address this scenario and operators had to improvise. I would also say that the company TEPCO as a whole was slow to react and not forthcoming about the reality of the situation.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.